Question:
if space is bent by gravity does this mean an orbiting planet is traveling in a straight line?
?
2009-04-17 21:08:49 UTC
if space is bent by gravity does this mean an orbiting planet is traveling in a straight line?
Eighteen answers:
Answering machine
2009-04-17 21:20:39 UTC
technically and applying relativity; an orbiting object is travelling the straightest possible path in a curved space. This is called geodesic path.



To start with, picture a hard, smooth, wooden table top. The surface of this table top represents our two-dimensional space. If you roll a small metal ball across the table top it will travel in a straight line, from one end to the other, at a constant speed. Now place a large metal ball on the center of the table. Because the wooden table top is rigid, the large ball will not change its shape. The surface of the table is still a perfectly flat two-dimensoinal space. If you roll a small ball across it, the ball will still travel in a straight line (provided that it doesn’t collide with the large ball).



Now, lets take away the wooden table top and replace it with a sheet of some sturdy yet elastic material that is attached securely to the edges of the wooden table frame. At first, the surface of this sheet would also seem to represent an area of flat space. But if we again take the large metal ball and place it in the center of the elastic sheet, it will create a noticeable depression in the area of the sheet surrounding the ball. The surface of the sheet will no longer be flat. It represents a two-dimensional curved space. Now take the small metal ball again. Roll it across the surface of the sheet, but not directly towards the large ball. Instead, roll it so that it will pass near the other ball, within the surface curve. (For this experiment, pretend that the elastic sheet has no friction so that the small ball will not lose any speed just by rolling across it.)



When the small ball reaches the curve in the sheet which is created by the presence of the large ball, it can no longer continue to travel in a straight line. It will begin to follow what is known as a geodesic, the straightest possible path in a curved space. Its path will begin to bend in the direction of the large ball.
Shoeler
2009-04-18 04:11:34 UTC
In short... no



A planet is being pulled into an orbit usually by a larger mass. Our planet would theoretically travel in a straight line until acted upon by an outside force. The outside force is the gravitational attraction towards the sun. As our planet tries to travel away, the sun's gravity creats a circular path.



Gravity is a space-time curvature, and planets looping the sun follow the curve. However, they are in a straight line if your definition is the shortest distance between two areas. But "distance" in this case also includes time.
fred osim
2009-04-18 04:18:12 UTC
space is bent by gravity and a orbiting planet is orbiting around the sun, i suppose. this is newtonian physics. by according to einstein general relativity, the planet is follow a curve which is in it's shortest possible path around the sun. so that means yes, the orbiting planet is travelling in a straight line but in changing directions. however, i don't have the mathematical proof of it though. it's similiar to an ant crawling on a apple in Gravitation by thornpe and wheeler.
2009-04-18 04:55:11 UTC
Gravity is a space-time curvature, so planets orbiting the sun are following that curve. However, they are in a sense going in a straight line if you think of one as being the shortest distance between two points. But "distance" in this case also includes time.
Renee P
2009-04-18 04:29:15 UTC
It's been a couple of years since my upper-div gravitation course, however, I remember there is a specific term for the path an object travels through curved spacetime. I can't find it again. However, to quote Wikipedia on General Relativity, "Instead, gravity corresponds to changes in the properties of space and time, which in turn changes the straightest-possible paths that objects will naturally follow".



This is substantially what I remember learning - I just can't remember the term for the lines. It's not a stupid question - the answer is, "Kinda, Yeah."



Edit: Why could I not think of the term geodesic? Geez. I was tired last night. Thanks!
?
2009-04-18 04:18:46 UTC
Dont listen to the people who say this is a dumb question. Any theoretical question is a good one. they do not understand the universe. in theory, space is being bended in a higher dimensional version of our up and down, not left and right, so think of it as a quarter in one of those spirally money vortexes at the super market, if there was no friction, like in space, the coin would continue to spin in a hypothetical orbit around the center, the plane would not being heading straight, for space and time is not bent the way you are thinking it is. Space is being bent in the Fourth dimension, so in the fourth dimension, your plane is going straight, in the 3rd that we live in, it is curving, i would research String theory if you are confused.
badaspie
2009-04-18 07:54:36 UTC
It depends on your frame of reference. To an observer in our three-dimensional universe, the planet follows a curved path around its sun. However, objects on curved paths on Earth (*within* its gravitational well) experience centrifugal force as their direction of movement constantly changes, while objects in orbit *around* its gravity well do not. Therefore, from an extradimensional, gravitationally warped point of view, the planet is indeed traveling in a straight line, as demonstrated by the lack of centrifugal force.



(The lack of centrifugal force from the changing direction of the orbit has nothing to do with centrifugal force generated by the rotation of the planet--or any other satellite--itself. Artificial gravity produced in this way does not violate the laws of physics.)
2009-04-18 04:12:13 UTC
Orbiting planets dont travel in straight lines even if space is bent by gravity dumb question
Harvey DEntist
2009-04-18 04:13:20 UTC
No . Space is only bent by gravity in relative terms. Unless the universe is shaped like some weird overlapping dimensional layers were not going in a straight line,
?
2009-04-18 04:13:55 UTC
It's kinda weird. In Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, although the planet is moving in an elliptical orbit in space, it is moving in a straight line in 4-D space time.



Or something like that, most of what that book said went completely over my head.
David T
2009-04-18 05:07:40 UTC
No the planet is following the bent space. A staight line is an illusion in bent space.
lithiumdeuteride
2009-04-18 04:14:04 UTC
No. An orbiting planet travels in an ellipse, which is a curve. It is not a straight line.
2009-04-18 04:29:30 UTC
No! planets are stars, traveling at a fast rate. so they move around in the orbit, kind of like a wave, but all at a different pace.
Arisen
2009-04-18 04:36:42 UTC
if it is, it wont be orbiting, orbit means to travel AROUND an object. how could go around something by going in a staight line? we know that we orbit like a circle, how could a circle, in any way, become a straight line?
2009-04-18 05:56:28 UTC
In 4D space-time, light follows a straight line, but I'm pretty sure that planets do not. 3D space is not warped by gravity. So terms like mass, force, acceleration, etc., do not have the same meanings in 3D space as they do in 4D space-time---which causes a lot of confusion.
2009-04-18 04:12:03 UTC
no dude. think of time and space as water and gravity and masses as rox. It's that kind of bending.
LoL-ing PaNdA >:]
2009-04-18 04:16:58 UTC
think bout wat ur saying man.

forget all the science of it just remember that u said ORBIT.

HOW THE HELL CAN U ORBIT IN A STRAIGHT LINE!!!
Angela B
2009-04-18 05:24:28 UTC
In the early days of the space program, we in the good ol' U.S.A put our astronauts on skyrockets, otherwise known as military missiles, and shot them off into space. We were forced to do this because the Soviet Union was launching cosmonauts quite regularly, and our civilian space program was pretty much a disaster. Now, what do you suppose a military missle is designed to do? It is, of course, supposed to get to its target as quickly as possible. This means the missile accelerates at a very high rate in order to attain a large speed in as short a time as possible. Newton's second law, from Chapter Two, says the net force acting on an object equals the object's mass times its acceleration,



(2.29) Fnet = ma.



So you see there has to be a large net force acting on an object of mass m in order for it to achieve a large acceleration. Because of the large accelerations involved, and to better relate acceleration to human sensation, jet fighter operations and the space program use "g"s to measure the acceleration and, through the proportionality between acceleration and force expressed by Eq. (2.29), the force experienced by the pilots and astronauts. One "g" is the acceleration of gravity at the Earth's surface (which, in this book, I take as 9.8 m/s2 or 32 ft/s2).



The force you experience as 1 g is the support force (due to, for example, the floor you are standing on) that holds you up against the force of gravity, that is, your weight. Should you be so unfortunate as to lose this 1 g support force, for example falling off the roof while adjusting the satellite dish, you will experience, briefly, the effects of 0 g: no support force. If you were lifting off the surface of the Earth in a rocket and experiencing 2 g's, you would feel as if you weighed twice as much as you normally do, just standing around in the kitchen waiting for dinner. To give you the sensation of 2 g's, you would need a support force, provided by your flight seat, that is twice your weight. Since you get 1 g by just hanging out with the usual 9.8 m/s2 acceleration of gravity that is always there, you must accelerate upward at 9.8 m/s2 to experience 2 g's. An excess, or net, force equal to your weight must therefore act on you to give you this upward acceleration. The net force acting on you is



Fnet = 2mg (upwards, due to your flight seat) - mg (downwards, your weight) = mg (net, upwards),



so that,



a = mg / m = g.



The 2mg force of the seat on your body gives you the sensation of "2 g's".



The facility of the "g" terminology is that it refers to the force you experience in multiples of your weight. We all regularly experience our own weight, a force of 1 g. If you were subjected to a force of 2 g's, as noted above, you would feel as if your weight had doubled. The large g's generated by the acceleration of a military missile may not be a problem for a nuclear warhead but was definitely a problem for the early Mercury and Gemini astronauts. (The first two Mercury Astronauts, Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom, had to endure forces up to 11 g's due to the use of the Redstone ballistic missile as a booster. This meant their flight seats exerted a force on them 11 times their actual weight! An astronaut weighing 150 pounds would feel as if he weighed 1650 pounds!! By Newton's second law, the astronauts experienced a net force 10 times their weight, accelerating them at the enormous rate of 98 meters per second every second. This is close to increasing your speed by one tenth of a kilometer per second every second or over 200 miles per hour every second! (I'd like to see somebody's 'Vette do that!) The subsequent Mercury flights used the Atlas booster, so that the astronauts on the following flights experienced forces of "only" 7.5-8 g's.) How did the astronauts prepare for such tremendous "g forces"? The medical teams spun them around in centrifuges, that's how.





(6.1) "Pat, I'd Like to Buy an ... Eeeeeeeee!!": Centripetal Acceleration



The Wheel of Fortune is technically pretty lame when compared to some of centrifuges used nowadays to train jet fighter pilots. Anyone who has ridden a merry-go-round or one of those carnival rides that swing you around in circles knows that going in a circle results in the experience of forces that grow stronger as the circular motion gets faster. Training facilities for jet pilots use this effect to simulate the extreme forces of jet fighter flight, and prospective pilots are often required to take what is sometimes called "cockpit physics", where they learn, among other things, the origin of the g forces they experience in training centrifuges.



To understand why a centrifuge can produce large forces on the object being swung around, you have to go back to the definition of acceleration: Acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity. This definition is expressed by the following equation,



(6.1) a = dv/dt.



For you non-technical students, this equation, in English, sta


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...